Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. It is the very nature of a right to disallow the government from interfering with people's exercise of that right.

For example, Freedom of Speech disallows the government from interfering with people's speech.

And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms disallows the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms.

That's wildly incorrect. Freedom of Speech does not disallow the government from interfering with people's speech when that speech is dangerous and false. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not disallow the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms when it comes to automatic weapons and assault weapons.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Okay, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, it's a no-brainer that you would want any rifle with a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, to be banned.

So we'll start with the pistol-grip. How does a pistol-grip make a rifle especially dangerous?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Once again, you have failed to answer the question concerning your claim regarding pistol-grips. So I'll answer for you.

A pistol-grip does not make a rifle especially dangerous, which makes your claim false.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not disallow the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms when it comes to automatic weapons and assault weapons.

And that's why assault weapons are banned. You are again trying to make the failing case that a select-fire rifle and a non select-fire rifle are the same thing. But they're not.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Actually restrictions on full-auto weapons are justified more by Supreme Court rulings than by the text of the Constitution itself.

InfraBlue is wrong to suggest that there is anything in the text of the Constitution to authorize such restrictions.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's wildly incorrect. Freedom of Speech does not disallow the government from interfering with people's speech when that speech is dangerous and false. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not disallow the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms when it comes to automatic weapons and assault weapons.

That is incorrect. There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that authorizes any exceptions to our rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Confusion indeed, you're still muddling judicial review with the Constitution.

No I'm not.

Uh-huh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
In regard to judicial review, the banning of assault weapons passed US Appeals Court muster.

That progressive judges allow progressives to violate the Constitution just shows what a menace to America progressives are.

Your opinion is duly noted.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is no disallowance of restrictions according to the strict text of the Constitution, as well.

That is incorrect. That's what rights do. They disallow restrictions.

For example, Freedom of Religion disallows restrictions on religion.

The Constitution does not disallow restrictions on religion in regard to religious practices such as polygamy.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your opinion is duly noted.

That progressives are of the opinion that it is OK to violate the Constitution proves that progressives are a menace to America.

This opinion of yours is duly noted, as well.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The Constitution does not disallow restrictions on religion in regard to religious practices such as polygamy.

That is incorrect. The text of the Constitution does disallow that. The courts are just ignoring the Constitution.

I suspect that laws against consensual polygamy will probably be struck down as unconstitutional one day.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Don't stop there, go further down the yellow brick road.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not disallow the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms when it comes to automatic weapons and assault weapons.

And that's why assault weapons are banned. You are again trying to make the failing case that a select-fire rifle and a non select-fire rifle are the same thing. But they're not.

You're confused. I'm not making that case.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Actually restrictions on full-auto weapons are justified more by Supreme Court rulings than by the text of the Constitution itself.

InfraBlue is wrong to suggest that there is anything in the text of the Constitution to authorize such restrictions.

You're confused once again. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's wildly incorrect. Freedom of Speech does not disallow the government from interfering with people's speech when that speech is dangerous and false. Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not disallow the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms when it comes to automatic weapons and assault weapons.

That is incorrect. There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that authorizes any exceptions to our rights.

And again you're confused. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The Constitution does not disallow restrictions on religion in regard to religious practices such as polygamy.

That is incorrect. The text of the Constitution does disallow that. The courts are just ignoring the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution disallow polygamy?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Freedom of Religion.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

And again you're confused. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

No confusion. You are merely wrong. Rights preclude government restrictions.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused once again. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

No confusion. You are wrong to say that. Rights preclude such restrictions. That's the whole point of rights.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Freedom of Religion.

oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
And again you're confused. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

No confusion. You are merely wrong. Rights preclude government restrictions.

oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confused once again. I'm saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes such restrictions.

No confusion. You are wrong to say that. Rights preclude such restrictions. That's the whole point of rights.

That's merely your opinion.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. It is a fact that rights bar the government from interfering in the areas of law covered by those rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. It is a fact that rights bar the government from creating restrictions in the area of law covered by the right.

That's incorrect. You're confusing your opinion with fact. You'd be better off writing, "It's my opinion that rights should bar the government from creating restrictions in the area of law covered by the right."

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect.

No it isn't. Rights restrict the government from doing whatever activity the right forbids. That's basic law 101.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing your opinion with fact.

No confusion. I am stating facts.

InfraBlue wrote:

You'd be better off writing, "It's my opinion that rights should bar the government from creating restrictions in the area of law covered by the right."

I disagree. I think I am best off defending facts and reality when people claim that facts and reality are not true.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You're confused. I'm not making that case.

Sure you are. You want to ban rifles that are select-fire and rifles that are not select-fire. You've already made that obvious when you condemned both the select-fire AR-15 and the civilian version non select-fire AR-15. Like I said before, you want to have it both ways because that's the only way your argument works. But you can't have it both way.

So, in order to make an argument for banning the non select-fire civilian version of the AR-15, you will have to fall back on your old claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features make a rifle especially dangerous. However, when asked to provide something to prove that claim, you provided nothing. So that's really nothing to fall back on.

1 Reply

Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know